2023 (6) TMI 1102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty on transaction value in terms of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In respect of finished goods which were transferred to their other units, the appellant were paying duty on the value on which sales were made to independent buyers in terms of Rule 4 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. However, the appellant during the period 2006- 07 to 2008-09 in respect of unit located at G-1, Mangalpur Industrial Estate, Bakhtiarnagar, Raniganj-713321, West Bengal started paying duty on stock transfer on the basis of 110% of the cost of production determined as per CAS-4 in terms of Rule 8 of Valuation Rules, 2000. The adoption of a different system of valuation in respect of stock transfer resulted in the appellants being required to pay additional duty. The appellant paid the additional duty by issuing supplementary invoices in the name of other units who took CENVAT Credit of the differential duty paid by the said unit. But no interest was paid. 2. In respect of other units, the appellant during the period April 2007 to June 2010 were paying duty in respect of stock transfers on the basis of Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, but in these cases Revenue did not insist the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....OIA No.47/Bol/2 012 Dt.24.02.12 Appeal No. E/289/201 2 Aug '09& sep'09 17,898 Not quantified MS Billets 4 5 II 17/AC/DGP- I/2010-11 Dt. 13.10.10 04/AC/DGP I/2010- 11dt.13.101 0 04/AC/DGP- I/11-12 Dt. 12.07.2011 OIA No.51/bol/ 2012 Dt. 24.02.12  Appeal No. E/293/ 2012 2009-10 5895/- Not quantified / Non- alloy steel Ingots 8 6 III 46/ADC/BOL/1 0dt.09.12.10 106/ADC/Bol /11 Dt.13.07.20 11 OIA No.135/Bol/ 2012Dt.23.0 5.12 Appeal No. E/543/201 2 2007- 2008 57,44,419/- 8,47,164 /- Pig Iron 4 7 III 40/ JC/BOL/10 dt. 18 94/JC/Bol/1 0 Dt.08.10.20 10 OIA 89/BOL/201 1 Dt. 13.07.11 Appeal no. E/853/201 2 April'09 to Sep'09 21,03,511 Not quantified Pig Iron,M S Billets,Ferro waste and scrap& Alloy Billet 4 8. III 13/2010-11 dt.01.11.10 05/AC- 05/JBIL/R- 4/DGP- II/11-12 Dt.21.06.20 11 OIA No.50/ Bol/2012 Dt.24.02.12 Appeal No.E/290/ 2012 Oct'09 to Dec'09 77,235/- Not quantified Pig Iron, MS Billet & Alloy Billet 4 9. III 43/ADC/BOL/1 0 dt.03.12.10 107/ADC/Bol /11 Dt.13.07.20 11 OIA No.48/Bol/2 012 Dt.24.02.12 Appeal No.E/292/ 2012 Jan'10 to March'1 0 8,61,673/- Not quantified Pig Iron, MS Billet, Alloy Billet & Non- Alloy Billet 4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a delay, but the same was entitled to Cenvat Credit to their sister unit as it is a revenue neutral situation as held by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2000 (119) ELT 718 (Tribunal-LB)] therefore duty is payable by the appellant in case of revenue neutral situation, so question of payment of interest does not arise. 8. He further submits that demands are time barred as there was no misstatement or suppression of facts on the part of the appellant, therefore, extended period cannot be invoked. In view of the above submissions, he prayed that the impugned orders are to be set aside qua demanding interest and imposing penalty on the appellants. 9. On the other hand the Ld.AR for the department submitted that when duty is paid on supplementary invoices, the appellant is liable to pay interest. Therefore, the demand of interest is rightly confirmed against the appellant. To support his contention he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Indoworth (India) Ltd. Vs. CC & CE, Nagpur[2011 (22) STR 197 (Tri.-Mumbai) which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court as reported in 2012 (27) STR 3 (Bom.) 10. Heard the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rily by the manufacturer cannot be viewed as one made under sub-section (2B) of Section 11A of the Act. XXXXXXXXXXXXX 13. Accepting the stand of the Department that even in such a case once the payment of duty is made, interest liability would follow would bring about an incongruent situation. The recovery of the unpaid or short paid duty would become time-barred. If the manufacturer does not pay it voluntarily, it would not be possible for the Department to recover the same. But if he does it voluntarily despite completion of period of limitation, he would, further be saddled with the liability to pay statutory interest. Surely, this was not the intention of the Legislature while sub-section (2B) was introduced in Section 11A of the Act." 13. We have already held that as the appellant was not liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, therefore, no interest is payable by the appellant in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CCE & C, Vadodara-II v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co.Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the impugned order in Appeal No.E/552/2011 is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. 14....